Implied Question: But is it not a Mishnah in 'Zeh Borer', which specifically states that, in the realm of Eidus 'a man is the same as his wife'?

Answer: nevertheless, we might have thought that here, since the man is believed to have the adulterer sentenced to death, he is also believed regarding his wife, with a 'Migu'.

Clarification #1: The Gemara could just as well have said 'because it is a La'av that presented as a warning for Misas Beis-Din'; nevertheless, the Torah reveals with the Pasuk "ve'Hayah im Bim Hakos ha'Rasha" that he (the Eid Zomem) receives Malkos, provided it cannot lead to a Chiyuv Misah.

Clarification #2: But if it can lead to a Chiyuv Misah, then he will not receive Malkos - seeing as we learned in 'Merubeh' that R. Elazar is the one who absolves from the death penalty, witnesses who are first contradicted in a testimony concerning life and death, and then become Zomemin ('Hukcheshu ve'li'Be'sof Huzmu'), since R. Elazar rules that witnesses who are contradicted in matters of life and death receive Malkos. Now if 'Hukcheshu ve'li'Be'sof Huzmu' would be put to death, then this would be a case of 'La'av she'Niten le'Azharas Misas Beis-Din'.

Question: The Gemara here implies that the Eidim Zomemin receive Malkos from the La'av of "Lo Sa'aneh", based on the revelation of "ve'Hayah im Bin Hakos ha'Rasha". Likewise the Gemara at the beginning of Makos, with regard to the case of a ben Gerushah, where all opinions agree that the Eid Zomem receives Malkos, and with regard to the case where they testify that Reuven owes Shimon two hundred Zuz, and they turn out to be Zomemin, where they would receive Malkos unanimously, were it not for "K'dei Rish'aso". Yet Eidim Zomemin who testified that Reuven is Chayav Malkos only receive one set of Malkos according to the Rabbanan. And in answer to the question why they do not receive another set of Malkos on account of "Lo Sa'aneh", the Gemara answers that, according to the Rabbanan, "Lo Sa'aneh" serves exclusively as a warning for Eidim Zomemin?

Answer: To be sure there, where, on the one hand, they receive Malkos from the Pasuk "Ka'asher Zamam", whilst on the other (based on the principle 'There is not punishment without the Torah having first warned') it is impossible to receive Malkos without a warning. It therefore transpires that the Malkos that he receives for "Ka'asher Zamam" are based on the Azharah of "Lo Sa'aneh", which explains why he cannot receive more than one set of Malkos. Whereas regarding ben Gerushah or ben Chalutzah there is no reason why he should not receive Malkos because of "Lo Sa'aneh", and so he would regarding two hundred Zuz, if not for "K'dei Rish'aso" (which does allow him to receive twos ets of Malkos - and payment of money does require an Azharah).

Clarification: This answer goes even according to R. Yehudah, who holds elsewhere 'Lokin Alav'. This is because, in the first Perek of Makos, he learns it from Eidim Zomemin. Consequently, if not for the Pasuk "Im bin Hakos ha'Rasha", which reveals that Eidim Zomemin receive Malkos even though there is no Ma'aseh, we would have learned that 'La'av she'Ein bo Ma'aseh, Ein Lokin Alav'.

Clarification: It seems that Rava does not hold of the Gezeirah-Shavah of "Rasha" "Rasha". This will be explained later (in the fourth Perek).

Explanation #1: Some commentaries explain that by the B'nei No'ach, we apply the principle 'Azharasan Zu Hi Misasan' (the Torah's warning carries with it the death-sentence; So by Yisrael, Malkos replaces Misah.

Explanation #2: It is also possible to explain that since it sometimes happens that one dies on account of the lashes, as we learnt in 'Eilu Hein ha'Golin' ('and he dies under his hand'), he is therefore Patur from Misah.

Question: There is a problem with both of these explanations however, from the Gemara's Kashya 'If so, why do we need an assessment?

Explanation #3: Rashi's explanation is the correct one (that someone who transgresses Hash-m's commands deserves to die, sometimes through Sekilah, sometimes through Sereifah ... and sometimes through Malkos [which is partial death]).

Explanation #1: Some commentaries explain that the Heavenly Court always sanctify it at the time of the Molad (the birth of the new moon).

Question: This is not correct however, because if it was, then even if it was seen 'in its time' (on the thirtieth, the Heavenly Court will already have sanctified it?

Explanation #2: The correct explanation is therefore that of Rashi, who explains in the second Perek of Rosh Hashanah (see Maharsha) - that on the thirtieth day, the Heavenly Court wait for the Beis-Din, who may postpone Rosh Chodesh until the next day. But on the thirty-first, when Beis-Din will have to declare it on that day, the Heavenly Court (have no reason to wait, so they) sanctify it first thing in the morning.

Implied Question: But the Yerushalmi quoting Rava bar Zavda, explaining the reason of R. Elazar b'R. Tzadok, state that when the Heavenly Court sees that Beis-Din are not sanctifying the new moon, they sanctify it (implying that they do so on the thirtieth)?

Answer: It is possible however, to explain the Yerushalmi like Rashi - that when the Heavenly Court see that Beis-Din did not sanctify the new moon on the thirtieth, they sanctify it on the morning of the thirty-first, seeing as it will have to be sanctified on that day, and there is no longer a Safek.

Clarification: Rashi explains that the Tana cannot avoid saying 'Ibur', since it needs to be verbalized that they actually sanctify Adar Sheini as Adar, because if they would be silent, it would automatically be fixed as Nisan.

Question #1: Rashi was not correct when he mentioned the word 'sanctified', seeing as, according to this Tana, the word 'Kidush' is not applicable, seeing as, in his opinion, it does not require sanctification irrespective of whether it is a full month or one that is lacking - Beis-Din are not required to announce 'Mekudash Mekudash'.

Correction: In fact, what Rashi ought to have said is that 'they actually fix Adar Sheini as Adar'.

Question #2: Also the implication from his words that they fix it as Adar Sheini on the thirtieth of Adar is not correct, since the Gemara will say forbid fixing a leap-year on the thirtieth of Adar, seeing it is fit to be fixed as Nisan.

Alternative Explanation: The correct explanation therefore is that the stating of the Ibur takes place at the time that the seven judges decide that the year will be declared a leap-year - before the thirtieth of Adar; and when the witnesses then come and testify that they saw the new moon, even if they then fix it S'tam, since (having announced it earlier), it now automatically becomes Adar Sheini.

Question: In that case, we have a discrepancy between R. Meir in our Mishnah, who says that Ibur ha'Chodesh requires three, and so does 'Ibur ha'Shanah'; and the Beraisa that we learned earlier, where he says 'Kidush ha'Chodesh ve'Ibur ha'Shanah bi'Sheloshah'?

Implied Answer: We cannot answer that R. Meir in our Mishnah is really referring to Ibur Shanah and not to Ibur ha'Chodesh (that precedes it) ...

Refutation: Because, as the Gemara just explained, the Tana mentions Ibur Chodesh only because it wants to mention Ibur Shanah', implying that one Tana learned them both.

Explanation #1: Rashi explains that this refers to Achashverosh.

Refutation: But it does not seem correct to say that the Chachamim instituted this corresponding to Nochri officers.

Explanation #2: Rabeinu Tam therefore explains that it is referring to Jewish officers.

Source: And we find at the end of Melachim that Nevuzraden exiled 'three guards of the inner-gate and five men (from the advisors) who saw the king's face', whilst at the end of Yirmiyah is is written "and seven of the men who saw the king's face".

Proof: And so it evident from the Yerushalmi, who lists them with the Sanhedrin ha'Gadol.

Yerushalmi's Wording: In fact, the Yerushalmi states there 'There are some who explain that a Beis-Din must consist of seventy-one, as the Pasuk says "And the chief executioner took the three guards of the inner-gate (that makes three), and seven of the men who saw the king's face (making ten), and sixty of the men of the land (making seventy), and from the city he took one eunuch who was appointed over the men of war (making seventy-one). And why does the Pasuk refer to him as a 'eunuch'? Because he sat and clarified the Halachah. One Pasuk says "five" (of the men who saw the king's face), whilst another Pasuk says "seven" - to include the two scribes of the Dayanim.